both mccain and obama want a draft Options

[Psykopath]

DAMMIT! YOU BEAT ME TOO IT BECAUSE I HAD A BOND CALL! ARGH!

hehehe

[Spectatrix]

Jessica, the point of the draft is to shore up the entire military in times of extreme need. That means both combat & support roles (not just medical). If a woman in a unit is pregnant, she needs to be assigned to a role where she can still do productive work. It's a serious failing of the military if they don't have that properly organized. Also, women would have to pass the same physical and psychological tests as men, so claiming that women are too emotional to be in combat is no reason to exclude them from the draft. If they aren't fit for duty, they won't be there.

[Inferia]

Isn't it rather judgmental to say that women are too emotional to be drafted? If "too emotional" is a disqualifier for the draft, I can name a few men who would fall under that category too. I don't mean to be rude, but it seems like somehow that statement characterizes men to be strong, less emotional as compared to women. I'm not sure how that's true. I've met many women who are very strong and level headed, then there are the men I've met who are just as emotional as women can be.

If you don't think everyone is fit to be in the military, you should have a draft. And if you think there should be a draft, then that should mean anyone can be fit to join the military, less the old and the young.

[Inferia]

in general, women are pretty worthless at everything they do. (there are a few exceptions)

guys make better professional cooks. single parent households where the male is the parent raise kids with better grades.... etc etc etc.

alot of this is because they aren't EXPECTED to take responsibility for themselves through most their lives.

sure, women "took care of the country" during ww2, but what choice did they have? just goes to show that women are capable of being drafted, they just need to balls up for it and quit bitching. best thing that could happen to the majority of our worthless and ignorant baby factories would be if they had a good taste of some manuel labor, and stop recieving special treatment.

equal rights means equal responsibility.

Seriously? What kind of environment do you live in? Anyway, lets toss this one around for kicks. For cenutries, perhaps even millenniums, it's been the good ol' boy's club in many countries. Sure, you can say that statistically women are suited for child bearing and raring, but why stop there, lets also say statistically white men are better at governance and the black folks are pretty darn good at that field work. All jokes aside, people are better at what they're trained to do. If your dad is a mechanic you probably know a few more things about the engine than the average folk. Traditionally, women are brought up to be a mother, to be a wife. Traditionally, women are not brought up to be a mechanic, a scientist, or even a chef. If the focus on training is on men, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that men are better than women at a certain job. So much of this is upbringing of a person and the net society casts on us. We talk about social mobility in my social science classes, how the shape of society is set up up so that a certain group of people is more likely to succeed in a certain life, where as others not. Society places a limit on mobility, it has a subconscience way of keep certain people down for good or bad. This limited mobility is often used as a stereotype that such and such group is only good at so and so. But is it really true? I don't know, it's rather hard to judge. In this particular case, women is such a large category. I'm not sure if women constitute as half of the people on earth, if not, it's probably pretty damn close. I would say there should be a large enough variation if all things are held equal, it would be hard to say that women has these following characteristics, and the same can be said for men. But that's just the thing, things are rarely ever held as "equal".

And by the way, men are not better cooks than women, there are just more of them in the chef profession than women.

[woody]

draft em both

if their preggers, they get 8 weeks after birth before they have to show up

[Billy]

Well, my husband is in a medical company in the Army. There are about 50 people in his company and only 10 of them are men. My husband is a lab tech. Out of those women, at least 15 of them are pregnant. They don't have to do physical training, and they get to stay inside most of the day. My husband, however, has nothing to do because they aren't currently deployed so some days he goes out to the shooting range, and the preggies don't go. Some days he works in the motorpool doing inventory on hospital equipment coming back from Iraq, and preggies don't do that either. So, basically, they sit there and look pretty. Most women in the Army do a piss poor job at their MOS. Most of them are whores who couldn't afford to go to college and join a sorority. Additionally, isn't the point of a draft to have people to FIGHT over there? Women aren't allowed in combat (for the reasons listed in my previous post). Are we really going to draft a couple MILLION women just for the purpose of training them up to be medics. That's pretty pointless. We have tons of women that are already in the medical profession. Joining the military to be a medical MOS during times of war should be voluntary on the part of women. I just live by the notion that women really aren't meant to be in war. Like I said before, men are better able to hide their emotions. Do we really want that many women running operations similar to that of World War 2 and Vietnam. If you know history well enough, the women pretty much took care of our country during WW2 while the men were overseas fighting, thus putting into overdrive the women's workforce. I see no benefit in drafting women as well.

Sounds like your husband does the job of a woman. Maybe you should get him some yarn for knitting and a palates video this christmas.

[Hartmann]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287/91958...d=elections.xml

According to that it sounds as though McCain does not support a draft (and neither does Obama) but if there was a draft, Obama would like for women to register.

I'll probably come off as completely sexist but I view it as a reality that men and women are physically different and while some women can bench 250 lbs, most cannot and most women would not make great fighters on the front line of war. It has nothing to do with superiority, just body mechanics. Just like I don't have a body made for child bearing, a woman does not have the body (without serious work) to go out and fight a war. That's not to say that there are not capable women currently serving, I just see women being drafted as a bad idea all around. This country saw what an open draft did during Vietnam, it sent men who were unfit physically to fight a war and most of them didn't come back. You don't throw bodies on the battlefield if you don't have to.

[Inferia]

I'll probably come off as completely sexist but I view it as a reality that men and women are physically different and while some women can bench 250 lbs, most cannot and most women would not make great fighters on the front line of war. It has nothing to do with superiority, just body mechanics. Just like I don't have a body made for child bearing, a woman does not have the body (without serious work) to go out and fight a war. That's not to say that there are not capable women currently serving, I just see women being drafted as a bad idea all around. This country saw what an open draft did during Vietnam, it sent men who were unfit physically to fight a war and most of them didn't come back. You don't throw bodies on the battlefield if you don't have to.

So essentially you're saying sending the physically unfit to fight a war is a bad idea. Many men and women are unfit and can't fight a war (without serious work), I feel like your argument just support having a draft is a bad idea, not drafting women is a bad idea...

Before people start attacking me, I'm just trying to get a more introspective post, something other than women can't serve because they a) suck at doing things, b ) are physically unfit, c) too emotional. Because many men a) suck at doing things, b ) are physically unfit, c) too emotional. There may be lots of reasons why women shouldn't be drafted, but I feel like those are not it. One of my professors had a baby, took a 2 week leave, then came back to work. The second baby took even less time. So there are women who can handle a baby and work. And yes, I know men who are just attached to their babies as women. You hear about many men coming back from war completely messed up, with depression, post-traumatic stress, etc, were these men just too "emotionally weak" to handle it? I sure hope seeing your buddy get killed or people get blown up will make someone emotional or else this world would be a scary place to live.

Just my 2 cents.

[woody]

in other words...

women are a walking uterus

[Hartmann]

So essentially you're saying sending the physically unfit to fight a war is a bad idea. Many men and women are unfit and can't fight a war (without serious work), I feel like your argument just support having a draft is a bad idea, not drafting women is a bad idea...

Before people start attacking me, I'm just trying to get a more introspective post, something other than women can't serve because they a) suck at doing things, are physically unfit, c) too emotional. Because many men a) suck at doing things, are physically unfit, c) too emotional. There may be lots of reasons why women shouldn't be drafted, but I feel like those are not it. One of my professors had a baby, took a 2 week leave, and came back to work. The second baby took even less time. Her husband is a professor as well. So there are women who can handle a baby and work. And yes, I know men who are just attached to their babies as women.

It's not about being attached to babies, I physically cannot produce a baby. Does that make me inferior? (don't answer that, some feminists would say "yes")

And the argument at its center is physical and emotional abilities. We have physical differences and our brains are wired differently. http://www.thirdage.com/love-romance/the-m...he-female-brain (goofy article but has some good points).

Of course there are women who can fight just as there are men who can't, so if women are going to serve on the front lines then they should be required to pass the same physical and mental tests that them men in the same branch complete.

And yes, I'm completely against the draft.

[Inferia]

It's not about being attached to babies, I physically cannot produce a baby. Does that make me inferior? (don't answer that, some feminists would say "yes")

And the argument at its center is physical and emotional abilities. We have physical differences and our brains are wired differently. http://www.thirdage.com/love-romance/the-m...he-female-brain (goofy article but has some good points).

Of course there are women who can fight just as there are men who can't, so if women are going to serve on the front lines then they should be required to pass the same physical and mental tests that them men in the same branch complete.

And yes, I'm completely against the draft.

Women have served in the military since WWI, they've seen people with wounds that we probably can't imagine and endure harsh conditions just as well as men. Yes, body mechanics of women are different from that of men's, but this isn't the olympics, we're not looking to break a world record, we're just looking for people to fight a war. By that stance, the asian body stature is smaller than that of the Caucasian stature which is not as built as the African stature, that means Africa should be kicking everyone's ass because they're "more fit" and Asia should never win a war because they're "less fit". *cough*vietnam*cough*. Just the other day I read about the emerging female hunters in the wall street journal. It was about how Palin represent a new class of hunters, they are desperately trying to increase the popularity of their support since their numbers are dwelling. Their new target, pardon the pun, are women hunters. There are now women who are winning hunting competitions over men because of their attention to details and skills. Male hunters don't like this much, they like how their membership is increasing, but somehow they don't like how women are actually accomplishing something real in a male dominated field. Is this just another case of you're-making-my-balls-smaller syndrome? That by putting women down as "not good enough", "biologically inferior", "emotionally weak", is another way of artificially making men feel better about their supposed superiority? Haven't seen this before over and over again? If you're doing front line fighting then you should be physically fit and emotionally stable, and that goes for everybody, even men, but this has nothing to do with drafting women. Perhaps our old stereotypes about women is plain old, perhaps we'd be completely surprised if you truly study it.

[Dogmeat]

I'm a skinny bitch. Does that mean I'd be exempt?

As long as you cuddle with me and talk to me all about your girl-feelings, yes.

[Dogmeat]

Women want equal rights except when it comes to the messy shit, i.e.- the draft.

This is probably one of my most prickish stances, but either women get FULL EQUALITY (draft), no equality, or we eliminate the draft.

(Another reason why I don't want a women anywhere near the office of President, at least not until the draft is fully extended or eliminated all together...)

REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hartmann]

Women have served in the military since WWI, they've seen people with wounds that we probably can't imagine and endure harsh conditions just as well as men. Yes, body mechanics of women are different from that of men's, but this isn't the olympics, we're not looking to break a world record, we're just looking for people to fight a war. By that stance, the asian body stature is smaller than that of the Caucasian stature which is not as built as the African stature, that means Africa should be kicking everyone's ass because they're "more fit" and Asia should never win a war because they're "less fit". *cough*vietnam*cough*. Just the other day I read about the emerging female hunters in the wall street journal. It was about how Palin is a new class of hunters, they are desperately trying to increase the popularity of their support since their numbers are dwelling. Their new target, pardon the pun, are women hunters. There are now women who are winning hunting competitions over men because of their attention to details and skills. Male hunters don't like this much, they like how their membership is increasing, but somehow they don't like how women are actually accomplishing something real in a male dominated field. Is this just another case of you're-making-my-balls-smaller syndrome? That by putting women down as "not good enough", "biologically inferior", "emotionally weak", is another way of artificially making men feel better about their supposed superiority? Perhaps our old stereotypes about women is plain old, perhaps we'd be completely surprised if you truly study it.

I know that women have served since WWI (and before).

And obviously you missed the most important part of my post where I said: "so if women are going to serve on the front lines then they should be required to pass the same physical and mental tests that them men in the same branch complete."

I have no problem with women serving on the front lines, but if they are going to serve, they have to pass the same stuff the men do, right now they do not but women don't seem up in arms in about that. That's the only way you are going to get rid of the "my balls are getting smaller syndrome" with men on the front lines.

So let me say it again before you write another post directed towards me like I am some "women should be in the kitchen!" person, I am fine with women serving in the armed services and on the front lines as long as they pass the same physical and mental tests that men have to pass.

[Inferia]

I know that women have served since WWI (and before).

And obviously you missed the most important part of my post where I said: "so if women are going to serve on the front lines then they should be required to pass the same physical and mental tests that them men in the same branch complete."

I have no problem with women serving on the front lines, but if they are going to serve, they have to pass the same stuff the men do, right now they do not but women don't seem up in arms in about that. That's the only way you are going to get rid of the "my balls are getting smaller syndrome" with men on the front lines.

So let me say it again before you write another post directed towards me like I am some "women should be in the kitchen!" person, I am fine with women serving in the armed services and on the front lines as long as they pass the same physical and mental tests that men have to pass.

I don't believe I missed it when you said "Just like I don't have a body made for child bearing, a woman does not have the body (without serious work) to go out and fight a war." Are you sure you're fine with it?